A long-simmering legal fight between Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke and the city of Inglewood has come to a point where it is reviving ghosts of the past. This time, it has escalated to a nearly $400 million lawsuit as the billionaire asks the city for reimbursement.

Reportedly, Kroenke’s companies claim the city owes it nearly $400 million they spent on public roads, sewers, and other infrastructure, as well as police and fire protection tied to the stadium and surrounding development.

In the case, Pincay Re LLC v. City of Inglewood, 25TRCV04256, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Kroenke’s companies say their project “literally saved the city from bankruptcy.”

Kroenke built a privately-funded 300-acre site, about four miles east of the Los Angeles International Airport, known as Hollywood Park. Apart from SoFi Stadium, home to the Rams, it also features a 6,000-seat YouTube Theater, as well as office, retail, and residential buildings. Kroenke’s group has long argued that the investment brought jobs, modern infrastructure, and economic momentum to a city that had faced financial challenges for decades.

SoFi is part of the group of arenas that have coined the term the City of Champions for LA, as it has hosted historic events and legendary players in its stadiums, something that isn’t ending any time soon.

SoFi will also be hosting this year’s World Cup games, the 2027 Super Bowl, and the 2028 Olympic events, only adding to the eyes on the area. Consequently, Kroenke’s lawyers argue the city has undercut his investment in the complex that opened in 2021 and is clearly looking for some settlement with their latest act.

The whole petty premise pushed insider Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk to even joke that “maybe the Rams will be moving back to St. Louis.”

He even floated a scenario where the Rams could, in theory, end up leaving the stadium if common ground can’t be found. Unless Kroenke is willing to sell SoFi to the Chargers or someone else, or find a middle ground, though, the team is going nowhere. Kroenke, who has a history of playing hardball with his teams’ cities, didn’t make that divorce from Missouri easy either.

He fought over a litigation that ended with a $790 million settlement. The city of Inglewood, though, isn’t trying to repeat history, as it has contested the facts for the lawsuit that began months ago.

The lawsuit’s origin

In April, Inglewood approved a contract with WOW Media to install as many as 60 digital billboards around Hollywood Park that would share ad revenue with the city. Kroenke’s lawyers asserted that the billboards threaten the prosperity of his $5.5 billion sports and entertainment complex and reduce the value of exclusive sponsorships. They further complained that the deal violated the terms of their 2015 development agreement, which prohibits billboards near the SoFi complex.

According to them, it diverts money away from the billionaire’s investment while taking advantage of traffic to his venues and enabling “ambush marketing.” However, a judge rejected the arguments for blocking the WOW Media deal because the development agreement with the city is invalid because it was improperly enacted.

The friction has existed almost from the moment Kroenke decided to build SoFi Stadium. The $5.5 billion project went up without public financing right in the heart of Inglewood.

Kroenke isn’t alone in raising such a lawsuit.

The home of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers since 2024, the Intuit Dome, has also been in the headlines before. The owner of the $2 billion arena and Microsoft chief, Steve Ballmer, also raised a similar case on billboards around his project.

However, the city of Inglewood gave the Rams owner a blunt response.

Inglewood’s blunt response to Stan Kroenke

In its response, City Hall made it clear to Kroenke that having billions in the bank doesn’t change anything by pointedly remarking “billionaires are not above the law.”

City attorneys pushed back hard, arguing that the development agreement Kroenke is leaning on doesn’t hold legal weight. In their view, it can’t be used to limit what the city chooses to do with public land or how it generates revenue.

The city’s position is that Kroenke is trying to stretch language from an old agreement to box Inglewood in and protect his private interests, even though those provisions don’t actually bind the city. In court filings, the city officials focused on the bigger picture.

Inglewood leaders see this less as a narrow legal dispute and more as a test of who ultimately sets the rules. Mayor James Butts and others have been consistent in stressing that Inglewood retains the right to decide how its public land is used and how money flows back into the city, including through billboard deals.

Whether this standoff with Inglewood follows a similar path for Kroenke is to be seen.